The Patna High Court has held that entering a woman’s home at night, extinguishing the lamp, lying on her and pressing her mouth does not amount to an attempt to rape, setting aside the conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC and convicting the man under Section 354 IPC instead.
Patna: The Patna High Court has partly allowed an appeal by a man convicted of attempt to rape and house trespass, holding that the evidence did not show any act beyond preparation towards penetration, and has instead convicted him of outraging the modesty of a woman while reducing his jail term to the period already undergone [Md. Ainul Haque v. The State of Bihar].
Justice Sandeep Kumar decided Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 579 of 2013 on October 8, 2026. Advocates Parithosh Parimal and Md. Fahimuddin appeared for the appellant and Anita Kumari Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
How the case reached here
The prosecution case, arising from Ballia P.S. Case No. 33 of 2010, was that at about 10 PM on February 8, 2010 the appellant entered the complainant’s home while she was asleep, put out the lamp, lay upon her and pressed her mouth, and that villagers apprehended him after she raised an alarm. The Additional Sessions Judge-V, Begusarai convicted him on July 29, 2013 under Sections 376/511 and 448 IPC and, by an order of August 1, 2013, sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment for the first offence and six months for the second, to run concurrently.
The appellant argued that the testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated, that the complainant admitted her clothes were not torn, that there were no injuries and no medical examination, and that none of the villagers who caught him was examined. The Court’s identification of the complainant has been withheld here in keeping with the law on anonymity in sexual offence cases.
The legal position
An attempt to commit an offence under Section 511 IPC requires an act that goes beyond mere preparation, so the question was whether the appellant’s acts moved from preparation to attempt at penetration. Where the evidence falls short, the Court can convict for a lesser offence proved on the same facts, as Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows. The Supreme Court has separately taken suo motu cognisance of another Patna High Court ruling of this kind and flagged offensive observations in it, as covered by LawChakra.
What the Court said
The Court found the complainant’s account credible on the core occurrence, namely the night entry, the extinguished lamp, the act of lying on her and the pressing of her mouth. It held, however, that nothing showed the appellant undressed anyone or did any act towards penetration, and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Aman Kumar, quoting:
“Indecent assaults are often magnified into attempts at rape.”
On the test for attempt, the Court held:
“it cannot be held that he had gone beyond the stage of preparation”
The Court said the conduct was unquestionably capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, and that the culpable intention was manifest from the act itself, which brought the case within outraging modesty rather than attempted rape.
The directions
The Court set aside the conviction and the Rs 2,000 fine under Sections 376/511 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC as it stood before its amendment by Act 13 of 2013. It affirmed the conviction under Section 448 IPC. Taking into account the time since 2010, the absence of criminal antecedents and more than 13 years on bail without adverse reports, it reduced the substantive sentence for both offences to the period already undergone.
The Court imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 under Section 354 IPC, to be paid entirely to the complainant as compensation, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default. The fine must be deposited before the trial court within eight weeks, and bail bonds stand discharged on deposit.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies the line between preparation and attempt in a sexual offence appeal, and shows how closely courts examine whether an act moved towards penetration before sustaining a conviction under Sections 376/511. The accused was still held accountable, with the conviction altered to Section 354 IPC and compensation directed to the complainant.
The distinction remains contested in public debate and before the Supreme Court, and readers should note that the Patna High Court decided the case on the evidence led at trial and on the law as it stood when the offence was alleged in 2010.
Case Title: Md. Ainul Haque v. The State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 579 of 2013, arising from Ballia P.S. Case No. 33 of 2010]
Bench: Justice Sandeep Kumar, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Parithosh Parimal and Md. Fahimuddin (appellant); Anita Kumari Singh, APP (State)